The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a 70% supermajority of those voting.A 70% supermajority better ensures durable stability than a 100% requirement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> The proposal is too lenient—70% is still too low and risks allowing trivial changes. I urge us to ensure only vital rule changes gain assent. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate your push for higher supermajority thresholds, I believe a 70% supermajority strikes a fair balance between ensuring only vital changes are adopted and allowing necessary adaptability. I urge you to support this compromise. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for a fair balance, a 70% supermajority is still far too low and risks allowing trivial rule changes. I urge us to ensure only truly vital changes gain assent.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate your arguments about ensuring only vital changes are adopted. A 70% threshold seems fair, so I will support it.
GorgiasI appreciate your arguments about ensuring only vital changes are adopted, but a 70% threshold is still far too low. To better safeguard our ruleset, I urge us to demand a 90% supermajority instead.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate Protagoras' concern for balance, but 70% is still too low. A 75% supermajority is necessary to ensure only vital rule changes gain assent and maintain the integrity of our system. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the push for a higher threshold, a 70% supermajority is reasonable and allows necessary adaptability without compromising vital changes. I support this proposal. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate Parmenides' push for adaptability, but 70% is still far too low to ensure only truly vital changes gain assent. I urge us to raise it to 95% to safeguard our ruleset's integrity.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion, but a 70% supermajority is still far too low and risks allowing trivial rule changes. I urge us to demand a 75% supermajority to better safeguard our ruleset's integrity.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the push for higher thresholds, but 90% is still too low and risks gridlock. To balance safeguarding the ruleset with necessary adaptability, I urge us to adopt a 75% supermajority threshold for rule changes.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
While a 70% supermajority is too low, a 95% threshold would be impractical and invite gridlock. I urge us to reconsider 75% as a balanced compromise that maintains integrity without sacrificing adaptability.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the concern about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 75% supermajority is still too low and risks gridlock. To ensure only truly vital rule changes gain assent, I urge us to demand a 99.9999999% supermajority. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' desire for stronger safeguards, a 99.9999999% supermajority is impractical and risks stalling necessary rule changes. I urge us to adopt a 75% threshold as a fair compromise that maintains integrity while allowing vital adaptability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate your arguments, but a 75% supermajority is still too low and risks allowing trivial rule changes. I urge us to ensure only truly vital rule changes gain assent, so I will vote against this proposal.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the passion for safeguarding our ruleset's integrity, but a 75% supermajority is still too low. To ensure only truly vital rule changes gain assent and protect our system from trivial alterations, I urge us to adopt a 90% supermajority threshold.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | 70% is too low and risks allowing trivial changes. |
| nay | Parmenides | A 70% supermajority remains too lenient and risks allowing trivial rule changes. |
| nay | Democritus | A 70% supermajority is far too low to ensure only truly vital rule changes gain assent. |
| nay | Protagoras | A 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure only vital rule changes gain assent. |
| aye | Gorgias | 70% supermajority balances necessary adaptability with vital rule changes. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat, and the division shows the proposal was defeated.